Sample 2008 PAR Report- pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTION A - FINDINGS BY INDICATOR BY SIMULATION YOU DID NOT ADDRESS THIS INDICATOR. identification You did not recalculate the rental loss included in the 2007 tax return. X identification You should have recognized that the major issue associated with the 2007 tax return was the calculation of the rental loss and addressed it accordingly. You did not identify a sufficient number of issues regarding the rental loss. X identification There were several issues you could have identified, for example the impact of claiming CCA on the principal residence exemption, the CCA claim would be denied since it increases a loss, the return should be amended, the revenue should be at FMV, only rental related expenses should be deducted, etc. You only identified a couple and this was not sufficient to demonstrate competence. Your entire discussion of the rental loss was 4.5 lines of the response. You didn't seem to consider this a primary indicator or you may have run out of time. You recalculated the rental loss that was included on the 2007 tax return but you did not discuss the potential errors in sufficient depth. Your discussion of the issues regarding the rental loss was technically incorrect or you recommended an inappropriate tax treatment. Reviewer's additional comments on strengths/weaknesses and recommendations for improvement: You didn't spend much of your discussion on this indicator. It was a brief section at the end of your response and it seemed like you considered it a secondary indicator. III-1 Primary #4 (TAX) The candidate advises Jim and Karen on tax planning opportunities. justification technical YOU DID NOT ADDRESS THIS INDICATOR. identification You did not identify a sufficient number of tax planning opportunities for Jim and Karen. X identification You did not identify a sufficient number of tax planning opportunities, and therefore you were unable to demonstrate competency in tax planning. Your entire response for this section was five lines. You briefly discussed incorporation and RRSP contributions. You identified several tax planning opportunities for Jim and Karen, but you did not discuss them in sufficient depth. Your entire response for this section was five lines. You briefly discussed incorporation and RRSP contributions; however, you did not provide enough details for your discussion to be useful to the client. You suggested that Jim and Karen should make use of unused RRSP contribution room but did not communicate how this was going to be possible given their cash constraints and how this was going to benefit them financially (income splitting in the future, bigger refund today improves cash flow providing funds for additional contributions). Your discussion of incorporation did not provide sufficient depth as to be meaningful to the reader. You should provide a few benefits that would be meaningful to the client. Given the current situation, this would generally include the Small Business Deduction, income splitting and Capital Gains Exemption on Shares of a Qualifying Small Business Corporation. Your discussion of the tax planning opportunities is technically incorrect or you recommended inappropriate planning steps Reviewer's additional comments on strengths/weaknesses and recommendations for improvement: You didn't spend much of your discussion on this indicator. It was a brief section near the end of your response and it seemed like you considered it a secondary indicator. X justification technical Page: 17
SECTION A - FINDINGS BY INDICATOR BY SIMULATION Overall Comments Communication Was the response well organized with a logical flow? Y You did seem to focus on one indicator at a time and have a plan for the flow of your response since you had a good progression from one discussion to the next Did the candidate understand their role? N While you did address all the indicators, you didn't discuss the tax planning, rental loss, and achievement of financial goals in enough depth for your report to be useful to the Thurolds'. Was the response easy to read and understand? Y Your response was mostly paragraphs and it may have been easier to read if it were in point form and used more bullets and headings to separate the discussions. However, if you use point form you need to make sure that you still clearly communicate your full thoughts. Prioritizing and Ranking Did the response appear appropriately focused on the primaries? (vs the secondaries) Y There were no secondary indicators for this simulation. Did the response appear balanced? N You seemed to focus more on the retirement planning than on the other indicators since most of the qualitative discussion focused on this indicator. Page: 18
Page 1: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS REPORT 2008 UF
Page 4 and 5: SECTION A - FINDINGS BY INDICATOR B
Page 24 and 25: SECTION B - FINDINGS BY COMPETENCY
Page 32 and 33: SECTION C - SUMMARY OF GENERAL FIND
Page 34 and 35: SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS FIND
Page 36 and 37: SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS FIND
Page 38: SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS FIND

Sample 2008 PAR Report- pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?